Because that will cause Toyota to change their mind. [emoji1787]
Would be lovely to offer a bigger tank like Porsche does with the 911(23g) but yeah bet it will be smaller like the Tacoma.:sad: I think the small tank on the LC 250 is more of a crime since that is the official toyota overlander suv.
It will definitely decrease in size, which like in the Tacoma, is completely logical in the name of saving weight and cost when the vehicle got substantially more fuel efficient. There's nothing wrong with keeping the range similar to the prior model. They're losing virtually zero sales by not having some silly overlanding fetish 700 mile tank.I wonder if new 4runner ends up with smaller tank just like the tacoma. We should protest to have a bigger tank like 30 gallons.
It will definitely decrease in size, which like in the Tacoma, is completely logical in the name of saving weight and cost when the vehicle got substantially more fuel efficient. There's nothing wrong with keeping the range similar to the prior model. They're losing virtually zero sales by not having some silly overlanding fetish 700 mile tank.
Non-issue. Mount silly rotopax crap on the rig if you're getting range anxiety in a 25mpg truck.
Leaving it at the 5th gen size is a needless range increase for the 200 overlanders out there that costs them extra as more physical fuel tank size to manufacture, and harms curb weight by the weight of the larger tank and the extra gallons inside of it. It harms everything to go for mondo ranges just for those few little overlanders.I disagree with that, Toyota is selling these SUV as modification friendly so adding lifts/bigger tires kill the range. I am not saying a 700 mile tank but if they left it at 5th gen size then we would have probably closer 500 mile factory with room to kill your MPG with mods:heh:
But with that said you are correct![]()
It will definitely decrease in size, which like in the Tacoma, is completely logical in the name of saving weight and cost when the vehicle got substantially more fuel efficient. There's nothing wrong with keeping the range similar to the prior model. They're losing virtually zero sales by not having some silly overlanding fetish 700 mile tank.
Non-issue. Mount silly rotopax crap on the rig if you're getting range anxiety in a 25mpg truck.
Well, if we're thinking unladen highway range, EPA highway should be 26-27 on the new 4Runner considering the Tacoma manages 26mpg without the hybrid.At least 700 miles per tank will be nice. Subaru cars can reach 500 miles.
Well, if we're thinking unladen highway range, EPA highway should be 26-27 on the new 4Runner considering the Tacoma manages 26mpg without the hybrid.
That would be 470-490 miles of range. Go a bit slower and I'm sure you'll crack 500. I can get my 5th gen to do 500 on a highway tank by the magic of Not Going 80 and bleeding speed on hills. Of course, I don't drive 500 miles without bathroom/rest breaks, I am not a piss-jug-trucker. Despite all my offroading I have never driven 200 miles without passing a gas station.
Is the claim that a 6th gen towing will lose a larger percentage of its stated range while towing than the 5th gen? Even the hybrid?
We've got one of those long interstate stretches that people seem to worry about here in Utah on I-70. Like 110 miles or so between Salina and Green River without gas. If chose to tow a 5k lb trailer in a 4Runner on that stretch, and I refused to carry 2 extra gallons of gas, I suppose I would just keep the speed down to keep the MPG up. People that can't logic through self-imposed towing problems seem awfully similar to people that can't figure out how to not run out of charge in an EV.
I think Toyota was wise to not cater to fringe situations like that on a truck where max load towing is a tertiary concern at best. Gaining MPG gives them opportunity to lower the cost and weight of additional fuel and fuel tank, and they're wise to take advantage of that. Modern vehicles are heavy enough without pretending everything needs to have a Suburban's fuel tank, IMO.
Need better than 150 miles of range when towing 6k lbs? Doing this regularly? Perhaps choose a better dedicated tow pig.
Well said. I can't imagine too many GX550 buyers are trying to tow long distances at or near the tow limit. If they are, indeed, they will have to settle for frequent fuel stops, or a fuel can if they've crafted a situation where they would need it. To me, a logical use case of towing 8000 lbs with a GX would be taking it 50 miles away to the lake on the weekends. If I was regularly trying to tow 8000 lbs 300+ miles away, I would choose a more legitimate heavy duty long haul tow rig.For me - yes. Based on the real world towing performance of the full size turbo gas engines, they typically perform worse than the comparable normally aspirated engine in towing mpg. Under load the turbos are less fuel efficient than larger displacement NA engines. Lots of reasons - primarily that turbo gas engines run hotter and require more fuel to keep EGTs in check and in turn have lower thermal efficiency. I'd assume that's why the Ford 5.0 gets better mpg towing than the 3.5 EB.
Of course being a new engine it might be better than the outgoing 4.0. But in either event, it's rare that any engine makes a big change in mpg towing outside of diesel vs gas. I would bet that the new powertrain gets within 10% (1mpg or less) of the old one. So, 8mpg in the old one might get you to 9mpg in the new one. I don't think it will go from 8mpg in the old one to 12mpg in the new one. If it does - fantastic. But TLF only got about 12mpg pulling a compact offroad pop-up trailer. Put a full size box back there and I'd be shocked to see it break 10mpg. I'd put my money on 7-8mpg. Add a head wind and I think you'll see some tanks of gas averaging 5mpg in bad towing conditions.
I see that in my Tundra. Average with my relatively modest size 20 foot full height/width travel trailer I see anywhere from 5-12mpg. Average over about 8k miles so far has been around 8mpg. The killer is headwinds in places like the central Canada prairie lands or across the high desert of nevada. Both places I've run into 20+ sustained headwinds for full days. And I was in the 5mpg range which is no fun even with a 40 gallon tank. With 18 gallons, it'll be a lot less enjoyable.
I think towing in this case was low on the design criteria. The powertrain likely tows a lot better than the outgoing engine. It has a much better power curve. The biggest impediment is the small tank. It's not insurmountable. Just not what I'd have wanted if I could option it for my use. The head scratcher for me is the GX550. 9500lb tow rating, 17mpg, and 18 gallons?? There's a point where that really is a problem and the GX is the example of a pretty significant mismatch in powertrain and spec vs fuel capacity. That weight of trailer is pretty likely to result in less than 100 miles of range.
Edit: to clarify, I really like the turbo engines. I think they'll be much nicer to drive. And probably tow pretty well. It's just a bigger fuel tank away from being a really great small camper puller.
How did the engineers manage to increase the size of the vehicle but reduce the gas tank by 3 gallons. :der:
I wonder if new 4runner ends up with smaller tank just like the tacoma. We should protest to have a bigger tank like 30 gallons.
You can do whatever you want, but Toyota isn't going to spend money to redesign the fuel tank because a few enthusiasts want it. They've already designed the fuel tank and they aren't going to change that design -- that horse is already out of the barn, jumped the fence, and into the back 40.